Ever since prehistoric architects at #Stonehenge designed rock columns and labored to lift the heavy rocks atop them, humanity has been fascinated with columns and entablatures, whether they were known by that name or not, and the designs have continued to evolve.
#Vitruvius described five classes of temples, designated as follows: "#pycnostyle, with the columns close together; #systyle, with the intercolumniations a little wider; #diastyle, more open still; #araeostyle, farther apart than they ought to be; #eustyle, with the intervals apportioned just right." So, what does it mean to have "intervals apportioned just right?"
Aside from the subjective aesthetic criteria mentioned in https://pixelfed.social/p/Splines/802974815166948953, such as avoiding columns that "look thin and mean" and shafts that "look swollen and ungraceful," there were practical considerations, such as the gap being too wide to support heavy stone entablatures.
There was also the practical matter with intercolumniation that was noo narrow. "When the [temple] matrons mount the steps for public prayer…, they cannot pass through [narrow] intercolumniations with their arms about one another, but must form single file; then again, the effect of the folding doors is thrust out of sight by the crowding of the columns, and likewise the statues are thrown into shadow; the narrow space interferes also with walks round the temple."
So, intercolumniations of 2 column diameters (4µ) or less, as in #pycnostyle and #systyle, were considered too narrow. Likewise 3 column diameters (6µ) or more, as in #diastyle and #araeostyle, were too wide. The consensus sweet spot was 2.25 diameters (4.5µ) between column shafts at the bottom (6.5µ axis-to-axis), except for the two middle columns where the spacing was 3 column diameters (8µ from axis-to-axis).
Splines Front View of a #Peripteral (#Sexastyle) #Colonnade with #IonicColumns arranged in #Eustyle #intercolumniation.
Show moreEver since prehistoric architects at #Stonehenge designed rock columns and labored to lift the heavy rocks atop them, humanity has been fascinated with columns and entablatures, whether they were known by that name or not, and the designs have continued to evolve.
#Vitruvius described five classes of temples, designated as follows: "#pycnostyle, with the columns close together; #systyle, with the intercolumniations a little wider; #diastyle, more open still; #araeostyle, farther apart than they ought to be; #eustyle, with the intervals apportioned just right." So, what does it mean to have "intervals apportioned just right?"
Aside from the subjective aesthetic criteria mentioned in https://pixelfed.social/p/Splines/802974815166948953, such as avoiding columns that "look thin and mean" and shafts that "look swollen and ungraceful," there were practical considerations, such as the gap being too wide to support heavy stone entablatures.
There was also the practical matter with intercolumniation that was noo narrow. "When the [temple] matrons mount the steps for public prayer…, they cannot pass through [narrow] intercolumniations with their arms about one another, but must form single file; then again, the effect of the folding doors is thrust out of sight by the crowding of the columns, and likewise the statues are thrown into shadow; the narrow space interferes also with walks round the temple."
So, intercolumniations of 2 column diameters (4µ) or less, as in #pycnostyle and #systyle, were considered too narrow. Likewise 3 column diameters (6µ) or more, as in #diastyle and #araeostyle, were too wide. The consensus sweet spot was 2.25 diameters (4.5µ) between column shafts at the bottom (6.5µ axis-to-axis), except for the two middle columns where the spacing was 3 column diameters (8µ from axis-to-axis).
The image shows this variable intercolumniation.